Anticolonial Homelands across the Indian Ocean: The Politics of the Indian Diaspora in Kenya, ca. 1930–1950 SANA AIYAR Downloaded from ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE very first “nationalist” history of Kenya, published in 1966, Carl Rosberg and John Nottingham proclaimed that the “largely middle class oriented and religiously fragmented Indian population played only a marginal http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/ role in the expanding conflict between the white power elite and dominated African population.”1 While this book opened up new and exciting avenues of research into the history of nationalism in colonial Kenya, it closed off the same spirit of inquiry for the study of the politics of Indian immigrants, who appeared irrelevant and mar- ginal to the story of anticolonialism in the country. Furthermore, it anticipated two interrelated arguments made by scholars three decades later. First, diasporas are a priori assumed to be politically insular, leading to a focus on their internal social and at Fondation nationale des Sciences Politiques on February 3, 2015 economic organization. Second, territorially and racially bound nationalist narra- tives of anticolonialism are privileged over diasporic articulations of the same, thus reinforcing the myth of their political obscurity. A closer analysis of the politics of diasporic Indians in Kenya calls these con- clusions into question. While the 1940s did witness a political fragmentation among Indians along seemingly religious lines, as highlighted by Rosberg and Nottingham, those cleavages did not signify Indians’ marginality within the anticolonial conflict between European settlers and Africans. Rather, the debates that took place un- derscored the deep political engagement of a diasporic Indian community with an- ticolonial nationalist movements in both Kenya and India. In moving the study of diasporas beyond social identity to explore anticolonial nationalism across territorial boundaries, and in taking seriously the political ideas that emerge in diasporic con- texts, we can create a new paradigm for analyzing diasporic politics that is located squarely and simultaneously within both the homeland that migrants leave and the hostland where they arrive. In this conceptualization, diasporas emerge as the em- bodiment of transnational history, in whose political articulations the extraterritorial resonance of anticolonial nationalist discourses can be identified. Scholars have situated contemporary South Asian diasporic identity in between I am very grateful to Sunil Amrith, Sugata Bose, Caroline Elkins, Neeti Nair, Gabrielle Spiegel, Jim Sweet, AHR editors Konstantin Dierks and Sarah Knott, and the anonymous reviewers for their com- ments and suggestions on earlier versions of this essay. Many thanks also to the Andrew Mellon Hu- manities Seminar group at Johns Hopkins University, whose critical feedback and rigorous discussion was invaluable in the early conceptualization of this piece. 1 See Carl G. Rosberg, Jr., and John Nottingham, The Myth of “Mau Mau”: Nationalism in Kenya (New York, 1966), v. 987 988 Sana Aiyar constructions of the homeland and hostland. They argue that idealization of the homeland left behind by immigrants leads to the reproduction of religious, regional, and cultural identifiers in the new hostland. Consequently, studies of diasporic sub- jectivity have been overwhelmingly concerned with the transplanting of Indian cul- ture across time and space.2 The homeland, India, is presented as a static cultural signifier of diasporic social networks and religious identity, while hostlands are most often constructed within an impenetrable, essentializing nationalist framework. This dichotomy flattens the political imaginary of the diaspora, which is seen as having escaped the hegemony of power embodied in nations, celebrated in postcolonial theory for its inherent inability to belong fully to either.3 Moreover, diaspora studies Downloaded from is preoccupied with such a high level of theoretical discourse on hybridity and am- bivalence that these narratives lack historical specificity. For historians studying di- asporas, Frederick Cooper’s call to do “history historically” highlights the need to analyze diasporic subjectivity by moving away from the dehistoricized theoretical http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/ predilections of “diaspora studies” to focus instead on the specific historical contexts that created diasporas.4 Drawing on Jewish and African historiography, approaches to the study of mi- grants have considered the themes of traumatic, involuntary exile, dispersal, and a desire but inability to return to the homeland as preconditions that characterize these communities as diasporas.5 Between 1830 and 1930, approximately 29 million Indians dispersed across the empire on which the sun never set. Over a million of at Fondation nationale des Sciences Politiques on February 3, 2015 them arrived in British colonies, including Fiji, Mauritius, Natal, and settlements in the Caribbean, as indentured laborers to work on sugar plantations after the abo- lition of slavery. Uncovering the workers’ traumatic experiences on ships and plan- tations, scholars have characterized indentured labor in the late nineteenth century as a “new system of slavery.” Since nearly 24 million of those migrants returned to India, historians refrain from referring to indentured laborers as diasporas, despite their fulfillment of several preconditions highlighted by theorists, including trau- matic, involuntary dispersal and an inability to return until the completion of their contracts. However, the existence of a large number of “voluntary” migrants, who chose to remain in colonies such as Kenya after the end of their indenture, calls for 2 See, for instance, Vijay Mishra, “The Diasporic Imaginary: Theorizing the Indian Diaspora,” Tex- tual Practice 10, no. 3 (1996): 421–447; Amitav Ghosh, “The Diaspora in Indian Culture,” Public Culture 2, no. 1 (1989): 73–78; Sandhya Shukla, “Locations for South Asian Diasporas,” Annual Review of An- thropology 30 (2001): 551–572; Roger Ballard, ed., Desh Pardesh: The South Asian Presence in Britain (London, 1994); Peter van der Veer, ed., Nation and Migration: The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora (Philadelphia, 1995); Colin Clarke, Ceri Peach, and Steven Vertovec, eds., South Asians Over- seas: Migration and Ethnicity (Cambridge, 1990); Judith M. Brown, Global South Asians: Introducing the Modern Diaspora (Cambridge, 2006). 3 Homi K. Bhabha, ed., Nation and Narration (London, 1990), 291–320; Dominique Schnapper, “From the Nation-State to the Transnational World: On the Meaning and Usefulness of Diaspora as a Concept,” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 8, no. 3 (1999): 225–254; Partha Chatterjee, “Beyond the Nation? Or Within?” Social Text 16, no. 56 (Autumn 1998): 57–69. 4 Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (Berkeley, Calif., 2005), 109. 5 See, for instance, Jana Evans Braziel and Anita Mannur, “Nation, Migration, Globalization: Points of Contention in Diaspora Studies,” in Braziel and Mannur, eds., Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader (Oxford, 2003), 1; Robin Cohen, Global Diasporas: An Introduction (New York, 1997); Kim D. Butler, “Defining Diaspora, Refining a Discourse,” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): 189–219; Schnapper, “From the Nation-State to the Transnational World”; James Clifford, “Diasporas,” Cultural Anthropology 9, no. 3 (1994): 302–338. AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW OCTOBER 2011 Anticolonial Homelands across the Indian Ocean 989 a new framework for analyzing diasporas that is not determined entirely by invol- untary exile and the inability to return to the homeland. Scholars have begun to use the term “diaspora” for Indians who remained in the Caribbean after indenture, but they caution against conceptualizing a “singular” diaspora, highlighting instead the diversity within the community, which generated different social and religious re- articulations of the homeland to which they never returned, and indeed which many had never seen.6 Interrogations of such constructions of homeland and hostland and the diaspora’s mediation between the two have been an important starting point in moving away from Jewish and African models in diaspora studies.7 This intervention has been Downloaded from especially useful with regard to the Indian diaspora in Kenya, for whom there was no clear distinction between the homeland and the hostland, since returning to India was a tangible reality. For Indians who migrated to Kenya in the era before the logic of passports, territorial borders, and national citizenship created obstacles to the http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/ movement of people across the Indian Ocean, the physical separation between India and Kenya was never complete. The proximity of East Africa to South Asia created circulatory patterns of migration, which meant that the diaspora was never cut off from its homeland even as the political and economic reality of Kenya framed the immediate context of its political imaginary. This made its diasporic experience markedly different from that of Indians in the Caribbean and other British colonies where “return” to India was not really a historical possibility. Therefore, diasporic at Fondation nationale des Sciences Politiques on February 3, 2015 consciousness needs to be analyzed as emerging from the diaspora’s political in- teractions with both its point of departure, India, and its point of arrival, Kenya, neither of which was